574 réponses à ce sujet

[Bigdoser]

mousestalker wrote...

I played a city elf named Rica for one playthrough. She chose Bhelen because dwarves apparently have difficulty with pronunciation (Per the Proving Master). She felt giving the dwarves a king with only two syllables in his name was the kinder choice.

Did you know you just made my day with that post? Anyway playing on the ps3 until I get my air can to clean my GPU(overheating issue's), Anyway I can never put harrowmant on the throne even for a achivement >_> he is soo weak and supports the dam casteless system ugh. If anyone ask's my DN see's casteless and potential warriors and he knows behelen is strong enough to pass these laws, while he is on doing Grey warden stuff.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 09 janvier 2011 - 02:01 .

[expanding panic]

I have yet to put behlin on the throne. I have to do one more play through before DA2 so I suppose it will be thins one. I just cant bring myself to putting Behlin on the throne. (And I cheated and read the epilogue) and I think Harromont is the lesser of two evils.

[ejoslin]

I always put Bhelen on the throne. Dust Town convinces me -- how anyone can support a system like that and be considered moral is beyond me. Bhelen is a sleaze, but Harrowmont strikes me as worse -- someone who wraps up the most immoral beliefs in the air of respectability.

Modifié par ejoslin, 09 janvier 2011 - 02:20 .

[maxernst]

I've done it both ways. My first Warden (HN) put Harrowmont on the throne partly because he didn't pay much attention to the Criers and when he talked to Bhelen's rep, all he got was Bhelen should be King because his father was King and Harrowmont is trying to steal the throne. So he never really heard that Bhelen had any intention of changing the caste system--the only noble he knew wanted to change the system was Lord Helmi, and he was supporting Harrowmont. If Bhelen had presented his plans as the reason he should be king, it might have been different. Although that Warden was very risk-aversive and might have chosen Harrowmont anyway as the one less likely to result in turmoil in the short term and more likely to keep his word about aiding against the Blight.



My second warden (EM) thought the system in Orzammar needed to be blown up, so she chose Bhelen without hesitation as soon as it was clear that Harrowmont was a status quo guy.

[Sarah1281]

I really don't understand the concept of putting a leader's personal morality above what he will do for the country. It just strikes me as irresponsible to go 'Yeah, you might lead Orzammar into a new age of prosperity and retake land from the darkspawn for the first time in generations but...you forged some documents and I think you might have killed a relative or two. Bring on the slow death by stagnation and casteless-hater who is at least polite about it!' (Obviously paraphrased)

[Inzhuna]

Yes, of course, seeing how many thousands of coupies Dragon Age sold, it's entirely plausible you'd be the only one who chose this option in a decision that only had two.

[Thiefy]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I really don't understand the concept of putting a leader's personal morality above what he will do for the country. It just strikes me as irresponsible to go 'Yeah, you might lead Orzammar into a new age of prosperity and retake land from the darkspawn for the first time in generations but...you forged some documents and I think you might have killed a relative or two. Bring on the slow death by stagnation and casteless-hater who is at least polite about it!' (Obviously paraphrased)

I think it comes with the miscontrued notion that a "good" leader will have "good morals", and wouldn't succumb to the same "temptations" that a regular man would - which is why he is a leader to begin with.

that and because, speaking with our own real world in mind, you often don't hear about the dirty stuff "good" leaders do, only their accomplishments.

leaders are not just men, but symbols, and nobody wants one that is dirty or tarnished.

[wizardryforever]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I really don't understand the concept of putting a leader's personal morality above what he will do for the country. It just strikes me as irresponsible to go 'Yeah, you might lead Orzammar into a new age of prosperity and retake land from the darkspawn for the first time in generations but...you forged some documents and I think you might have killed a relative or two. Bring on the slow death by stagnation and casteless-hater who is at least polite about it!' (Obviously paraphrased)

Well that's really a drastic oversimplification.  It isn't just the forged documents and the deception of the Grey Wardens.  He also orders Harrowmont executed after he had honorably acknowledged Bhelen as king, and sets up a ruthless dictatorship where the Assembly is abolished.  Apparently the loss of representation and freedoms is okay as long as the casteless get some more rights, eh?  On the other end of the spectrum, when you support Harrowmont, Bhelen refuses to accept it, and attempts to kill the Warden, Harrowmont, and half of the Assembly in a coup, the very thing he accused Harrowmont of trying to do.  It's hard to argue that his intentions are pure in such a scenario.

Note that I don't think Harrowmont is better per se.  He has better intentions, he's a people pleaser and wants things to get better, but he isn't forceful enough to make that happen.  As a result, the Assembly walks all over him and Orzammar becomes more isolated and more caste oriented.  Neither Bhelen or Harrowmont is the obvious choice, and each one has some serious flaws in implementing their rule.

[Sarah1281]

Well that's really a drastic oversimplification.

I know the part in quotes was. That was actually why I made sure to mention it was just paraphrasing. I don't think saying that people are putting the personal morality of their leaders above what they will do for their country is at all an oversimplification if only because people have, in fact, said that they are doing just that. They have said that they cannot put someone like Bhelen in charge no matter what the epilogue slides say.

He also orders Harrowmont executed after he had honorably acknowledged Bhelen as king, and sets up a ruthless dictatorship where the Assembly is abolished. Apparently the loss of representation and freedoms is okay as long as the casteless get some more rights, eh?

I honestly don't care that he executes Harrowmont. In those kinds of societies, executing the loser in a bid for the throne is really common and Harrowmont really should do the same. I also don't care that he dissolves the Assembly as I don't feel it is really a representation of the people or allowed them any freedoms. These people were not voted on, they have hereditary power. They are not a republic they are an oligarchy. The Assembly never gets anything done and is hopelessly corrupt which the lack of a DN trial due to bribes should make perfectly clear. Dissolving them is what allows Bhelen to make his reforms because otherwise he'd have to keep bribing them or they'd block all of his efforts.



Really, who is losing representation? Decadent nobles? I'm fine with that. What freedoms are they losing? The freedom to get money in exchange for votes and keeping everything exactly the same so that Orzammar continues to die or to increase their own power and prestige? Also fine with that.

On the other end of the spectrum, when you support Harrowmont, Bhelen refuses to accept it, and attempts to kill the Warden, Harrowmont, and half of the Assembly in a coup, the very thing he accused Harrowmont of trying to do. It's hard to argue that his intentions are pure in such a scenario.

Yes, Bhelen does fly off the handle here and I think that's a really stupid move. He should at least wait until the people who just fought their way to the Anvil of the Void are gone because then he would probably win. I think that the concept of Harrowmont or Bhelen's intentions being pure or not is really personal morality which I find less important than what they will do for Orzammar, as I've said.

He has better intentions, he's a people pleaser and wants things to get better, but he isn't forceful enough to make that happen.

I could not disagree more. If Harrowmont has the Anvil, he has the power to crush Bhelen's rebellion and the Assembly all falls into line behind him. You can put Branka kidnapping surfacers and starting a war with Ferelden as Harrowmont not being forceful enough, yes, but the fact that he demolishes Dust Town badly enough the other castes actually complain about it and uses his golems to strictly and ruthlessly enforce the caste system is in no way making things better. If this is Harrowmont's version of making life better, I'm glad that without the Anvil he never manages to do anything.

[Giggles_Manically]

How can Harrowmont be the moral choice?



He supports a system that dehumanizes (dedwarfinizes?) a whole segment of society, and thinks they should not even exist. He stands by a system that not only allows but expects infanticide of children based on who their parents are. He stands by and does nothing while Orzamar grows weaker and weaker every year, with resources on hand but he wont use them.



I dont care what Bhelen does in a corrupt system, he has a plan and the will to use whatever it takes to save his city from being devoured. Harrowmont is a terrible leader, and person for his ideology and his inaction.



It was an easy choice for me.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

People also forget the Assembly is not a democratic institution. Far from it. Its not even republican. It is a body of nobles representing solely the interests of noble houses. None of the castes below the nobility have any say in matters of the assembly, and the assembly does not promote Orzammar's interest, only individual houses' interests. Disolving the assembly is actually a step towards a fairer, freer system of government. Keeping the assembly and appeasing the noble houses simply keeps the fat cats on top, and everyone beneath down.



So I do not think Harrowmont is very moral or decent at all. He reminds me of some rich gentry guy who wants to keep a golf course/country club open and operating despite the fact the land is desperately needed for a hospital or university. He is only honorable amongst his peers, and even then, its questionable.



Bhelen offing trian was not a terrible thing. I found trian repellant in so many ways, Bhelen did house Aeducan and Orzammar a favor whacking him.

[Giggles_Manically]

Now I see Bhelen talking like a mobster Skadi.

[Elhanan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

How can Harrowmont be the moral choice?

I dunno....

He attempts to save the rightful heir? He tries to call for legal proceedings instead of abiding a so called vote on the cuff? He also gives aid to said Noble? He does not attempt to murder his family? At least these were hints for me.

He supports a system that dehumanizes (dedwarfinizes?) a whole segment of society, and thinks they should not even exist. He stands by a system that not only allows but expects infanticide of children based on who their parents are. He stands by and does nothing while Orzamar grows weaker and weaker every year, with resources on hand but he wont use them.

As does Bhelen. He seems to only care for them as commodities. He appears to value them as future mine detectors, grunts, and bedwarmers.

The entire system needs reformed; not to be altered for personal use by the latest Royal kinslayer.

I dont care what Bhelen does in a corrupt system, he has a plan and the will to use whatever it takes to save his city from being devoured. Harrowmont is a terrible leader, and person for his ideology and his inaction.

It was an easy choice for me.

Hence the problem: any means to the end. I prefer a more stable route, and one where Bhelen is no longer part of the problem.

[wizardryforever]

Elhanan wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

How can Harrowmont be the moral choice?

I dunno....

He attempts to save the rightful heir? He tries to call for legal proceedings instead of abiding a so called vote on the cuff? He also gives aid to said Noble? He does not attempt to murder his family? At least these were hints for me.

He supports a system that dehumanizes (dedwarfinizes?) a whole segment of society, and thinks they should not even exist. He stands by a system that not only allows but expects infanticide of children based on who their parents are. He stands by and does nothing while Orzamar grows weaker and weaker every year, with resources on hand but he wont use them.

As does Bhelen. He seems to only care for them as commodities. He appears to value them as future mine detectors, grunts, and bedwarmers.

The entire system needs reformed; not to be altered for personal use by the latest Royal kinslayer.

I dont care what Bhelen does in a corrupt system, he has a plan and the will to use whatever it takes to save his city from being devoured. Harrowmont is a terrible leader, and person for his ideology and his inaction.

It was an easy choice for me.

Hence the problem: any means to the end. I prefer a more stable route, and one where Bhelen is no longer part of the problem.

I agree.  When Bhelen dissolves the Assembly he is still robbing people of their freedoms in order to rule as an absolute monarch.  Does it really matter who he is robbing of their freedom?  Not in my book he doesn't.  He is a complete egomaniac who wants power.  The Dwarf Noble origin should make this abundantly clear. Even disregarding that, the way he manipulates the Warden and refuses to back down should he be thwarted reinforces his ruthless ambition.  Sure, he may think his ideas for Orzammar will bring back the glory days, but who's to say those changes will ultimately be for the better?  Even if Bhelen does good things, he has established a hereditary absolute monarchy.  Such things never work out for very long, and ultimately come crashing down in a bigger conflict than the infighting between Bhelen and Harrowmont.

Even though the Assembly is not freely elected, it is still more free than no Assembly at all.  Sure, Bhelen may care about the casteless now, but who's to say how long that will last, especially if something happened to Rica, or the casteless revolted.  Sooner or later, Bhelen will suppress them as well, and then things will be much like they would with Harrowmont, only with less freedom to go around.

As I've said, neither choice is a particularly good one.  But Harrowmont at least means well, whereas Bhelen is a power-hungry monster.  Make of tha what you will.

[Costin_Razvan]

Morality is standing by a leader who views almost an entire half of his race's population as less then scum and treats them as such.



I am particularly impressed by such retarded logic.

[Sarah1281]

He doesn't appear to be taking away any freedoms, just taking away the power they had in government. And why does having 81 people making decisions instead of 1 make it more moral? At all? If the Chantry and Celene decided to crack down on templars and chevaliers raping people (the latter case may or may not be legally sanctioned) then you could argue that it is taking away the 'freedom' of the templars and chevaliers to do that but that doesn't make the decision to stop that an immoral one.



Bhelen may take away the 'freedom' of the 80 noble families to do nothing but seek their own advancement but in doing so he does things like stopping the nobles from being allowed to casteless-killing sprees with no consequences whatsoever because before Bhelen comes along, it's perfectly legal to do whatever you want to to a casteless. I really don't get how trying to protect the 'freedoms' of the nobles to abuse their power is in any way an even remotely moral thing to do.

[Giggles_Manically]

People dont have freedom under the current situation you dopes!



The assembly is nothing more than an oppressive group of self interested nobles who keep Orzamar down. I was ecstatic when Bhelen got rid of them and made Orzamar better for it.



"Oh no! The poor nobles dont get to continue to pull Orzamar down with them! THE HUMANITY!"

Harrowmont is a grade A moron, who manages to screw up Orzamar left and right and cant see past the end of his nose.

[Elhanan]

[quote]Costin_Razvan wrote...

Morality is standing by a leader who views almost an entire half of his race's population as less then scum and treats them as such.[/quote]

Both do, and have for a long time.


[quote]I am particularly impressed by such retarded logic.[/quote][/quote]

Hence your support for the catfish faced kinslaying Aeducan.

Modifié par Elhanan, 09 janvier 2011 - 08:06 .

[mousestalker]

I'm not sure the plight of a fictional race in a game really requires the use of invective.



The game is carefully designed such that anyone choosing either candidate will have qualms doing so. The decision may be easier if you're playing one of the dwarven origins (I would never make my sister mad at me, for example).

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

He doesn't appear to be taking away any freedoms, just taking away the power they had in government. And why does having 81 people making decisions instead of 1 make it more moral? At all? If the Chantry and Celene decided to crack down on templars and chevaliers raping people (the latter case may or may not be legally sanctioned) then you could argue that it is taking away the 'freedom' of the templars and chevaliers to do that but that doesn't make the decision to stop that an immoral one.

Bhelen may take away the 'freedom' of the 80 noble families to do nothing but seek their own advancement but in doing so he does things like stopping the nobles from being allowed to casteless-killing sprees with no consequences whatsoever because before Bhelen comes along, it's perfectly legal to do whatever you want to to a casteless. I really don't get how trying to protect the 'freedoms' of the nobles to abuse their power is in any way an even remotely moral thing to do.

I am for disbanding the Assembly; just rather not place an ego-centric maniacal murederer as the solo ruler in their place.

[Elhanan]

mousestalker wrote...

I'm not sure the plight of a fictional race in a game really requires the use of invective.

The game is carefully designed such that anyone choosing either candidate will have qualms doing so. The decision may be easier if you're playing one of the dwarven origins (I would never make my sister mad at me, for example).

It was extremely difficult the first time. But she said some nice things at my funeral.

[Elhanan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

People dont have freedom under the current situation you dopes!

The assembly is nothing more than an oppressive group of self interested nobles who keep Orzamar down. I was ecstatic when Bhelen got rid of them and made Orzamar better for it.

"Oh no! The poor nobles dont get to continue to pull Orzamar down with them! THE HUMANITY!"
Harrowmont is a grade A moron, who manages to screw up Orzamar left and right and cant see past the end of his nose.

But placing a lone Noble atop the throne that is just a Dimanond Quarter away from running things just like the carta is so much better, eh? Guess the end of the nose is geting a tad blurry now?

[Giggles_Manically]

Elhanan wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

People dont have freedom under the current situation you dopes!

The assembly is nothing more than an oppressive group of self interested nobles who keep Orzamar down. I was ecstatic when Bhelen got rid of them and made Orzamar better for it.

"Oh no! The poor nobles dont get to continue to pull Orzamar down with them! THE HUMANITY!"
Harrowmont is a grade A moron, who manages to screw up Orzamar left and right and cant see past the end of his nose.

But placing a lone Noble atop the throne that is just a Dimanond Quarter away from running things just like the carta is so much better, eh? Guess the end of the nose is geting a tad blurry now?

Yes because making a bunch of retarded nobles more powerful and reinforcing a self destructive system is the best most amazing thing to do eh? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
I am particularly impressed by such retarded logic.

Are you really surprised?

It's the same people really. Some of which actually admit they don't understand politics and I appreciate their honesty in revealing the obvious.